An hour ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> 1. The existence of Stepper knowledge in the Lazy compiler creates a
> 'spiritual' dependency between the Lazy language and a tool in
> DrRacket (= Tool world). QUESTION: does this knowledge ever make
> sense outside of our tool suite? Could it be reused by a
> stack-tracing debuggger in a textual repl?
That's a question that leads to what I was talking about.
(But again, I was talking about the change to the core, not the lazy
language.)
50 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> FWIW, there is precedent for this kind of thing, namely the
> properties that get added to syntax objects to tell check syntax
> about bindings that aren't in the fully expanded program [...]
But those properties were made independent -- so even if check syntax
changes, that property will still exist.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
